It is clear that even in an action in torts, if the defendant gives no rebutting evidence but a reasonable, explanation, equally consistent with the presence as well as with the absence of negligence, the presumptions or inferences based on res ipsa loquitur can no longer be sustained. The burden of proving the affirmative, that the defendant was negligent and the accident occurred by his negligences, still remains with the plaintiff; and in such a situation it will be for the Court to determine at the time of judgment whether the proven or undisputed facts, as a whole, disclose negligences. Continue reading “Is there a difference in civil and criminal law on the concept of negligence?”

D. K. Adikeshavulu and M. Thimmogowda (accused Nos. 12 and 13) were at all relevant times private persons. The trial on all charges against them must proceed.

When cognizance of the charges against them was taken. Buta Singh and N. M. Ravanna (accused Nos. 7 and 9) were not public servants. The question of santion for their prosecution, does not, therefore, arise and the trial on all charges against them must proceed.

P. V. Narasimha Rao, Satish Sharma, V. Rajeswar Rao, Ram Linga Reddy, M. Veerappa Moily and Bhajan Lal (accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 10, 11 and 14) were public servants, being either members of Parliament or a State legislature, when cognizance of the charges against them was taken. They are charged with substantive offences under S. 120B of the Indian Penal Code and S. 12 of the said Act. Since no prior sanction is required in respect of the charge under S. 12 of the said Act, the trial on all charges against them must proceed.

In this regard, reference can be made to the observations made by this Court in the case of Shyamdeo Pd. Singh v. Nawal Kishore Yadav (2000) 8 SCC 46. The Court has observed that inclusion of person or persons in the electoral roll by an authority empowered in law to prepare the electoral rolls though they were not qualified to be so enrolled cannot be a ground for setting aside an election of a returned candidate under Sub-clause (iii) or (iv) of Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 100 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. The court has observed: Continue reading “Finality of the electoral roll cannot be challenged in an election petition”

While dealing with the question of material facts and material particulars, we also considered it appropriate to take into account the ratio of the decision delivered in the case of Mahadeorao Sukaji Shivankar v. Ramaratan Bapu and Ors. reported in, (2004) 7 SCC 181 wherein the three Judge Bench of this Court had been pleased to consider the question as to what would constitute material facts and material particulars and also discussed its concept and the distinction between the two. In this authority too, it was emphasized and held that what particulars would amount to ‘material facts’ would depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down. Continue reading “What would constitute material facts and material particulars”

81. Every caveat intended to be lodged under section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall be drawn up in the manner prescribed in Form 35 (Civil) (Appendix I) and filed in the Central Filing Section of the appellate side of this court.

82. Every caveat under section 148A shall be accompanied by a postal receipt in proof of despatch of notice of the caveat by speed post or registered post with acknowledgement due to the person by whom the application has been or is expected to be made in respect of which the caveat is being lodged under sub – section (1) of section 148A:

Calcutta High Court Appellate Side Rules Affidavits 22. Every affidavit to be used in a Court of Justice shall be instituted “In the Court of ……………………… at ………………,” naming such court. 23. If there be a cause in court, the affidavit in support of, or in opposition to, an application respecting it shall also be instituted in the cause. 24. If there be no cause in court, the … Continue reading How to file Affidavit before Calcutta High Court